Your strength as a rationalist is the degree to which it takes “very strong and persuasive argumentation” to convince you of false things, and “weak, unpersuasive-sounding argumentation” to convince you of true things; ideally, in the latter case, the empty string should suffice.
…which means that strong rationalist communication is healthiest and most efficient when practically empty of arguments.
I downvoted this comment. First of all, you are responding to a non-central point I made. My biggest argument was that your theory has no evidence supporting it which isn’t explained by far simpler hypotheses, and requires some claims (institutions are ultra competent) which seem very unlikely. This should cause you to be just as skeptical of your hypothesis as me. Second, “the most healthy & efficient communication ⇒ practically empty of arguments” does not mean “practically empty of arguments ⇒ the most healthy & efficient communication”, or even “practically empty of arguments ⇒ a healthy & efficient communication”. In fact, usually if there are no arguments, there is not communication happening.
In this sort of situation I think it’s important to sharply distinguish argument from evidence. If you can think of a clever argument that would change your mind then you might as well update right away, but if you can think of evidence that would change your mind then you should only update insofar as you expect to see that evidence later, and definitely less than you would if someone actually showed it to you. Eliezer is not precise about this in the linked thread: Engines of Creation contains lots of material other than clever arguments!
A request for arguments in this sense is just confused, and I too would hope not to see it in rationalist communication. But requests for evidence should always be honored, even though they often can’t be answered.
Nope. Not interested in convincing anyone of anything.
I support Eliezer’s sentiment here:
…which means that strong rationalist communication is healthiest and most efficient when practically empty of arguments.
I downvoted this comment. First of all, you are responding to a non-central point I made. My biggest argument was that your theory has no evidence supporting it which isn’t explained by far simpler hypotheses, and requires some claims (institutions are ultra competent) which seem very unlikely. This should cause you to be just as skeptical of your hypothesis as me. Second, “the most healthy & efficient communication ⇒ practically empty of arguments” does not mean “practically empty of arguments ⇒ the most healthy & efficient communication”, or even “practically empty of arguments ⇒ a healthy & efficient communication”. In fact, usually if there are no arguments, there is not communication happening.
In this sort of situation I think it’s important to sharply distinguish argument from evidence. If you can think of a clever argument that would change your mind then you might as well update right away, but if you can think of evidence that would change your mind then you should only update insofar as you expect to see that evidence later, and definitely less than you would if someone actually showed it to you. Eliezer is not precise about this in the linked thread: Engines of Creation contains lots of material other than clever arguments!
A request for arguments in this sense is just confused, and I too would hope not to see it in rationalist communication. But requests for evidence should always be honored, even though they often can’t be answered.